Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Research Suggests E-Readers Are "Too Easy" To Read

samzenpus posted about 4 years ago | from the your-brain-wants-a-challenge dept.

Books 185

New research suggests that the clear screens and easily read fonts of e-readers makes your brain "lazy." According to Neuroscience blogger Jonah Lehrer, using electronic books like the Kindle and Sony Reader makes you less likely to remember what you have read because the devices are so easy on the eyes. From the article: "Rather than making things clearer, e-readers and computers prevent us from absorbing information because their crisp screens and fonts tell our subconscious that the words they convey are not important, it is claimed. In contrast, handwriting and fonts that are more challenging to read signal to the brain that the content of the message is important and worth remembering, experts say."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Something else that's too easy... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34879710)

Your sister. Seriously, she gives it up way too easily...

Re:Something else that's too easy... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34880258)

Well, she hates men and has AIDS. HAND

Re:Something else that's too easy... (1)

sleepy_weasel (839947) | about 4 years ago | (#34880992)

I'm sorry, but I have to mod this up... that was funny...

This is... (5, Insightful)

tool462 (677306) | about 4 years ago | (#34879730)

This is quite possibly one of the stupidest things I have ever read. I'm regretting not reading it on my Kindle, so I could forget it quicker.

Re:This is... (1)

rgbfoundry (1916834) | about 4 years ago | (#34879856)

Agreed. Somebody just needed something to say, didn't they. I wish nobody was listening.

Re:This is... (3, Insightful)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | about 4 years ago | (#34880544)

no kidding. Since when did "a blogger" get to define what's true?

Where's the peer reviewed studies?

Re:This is... (4, Informative)

madmark1 (1946846) | about 4 years ago | (#34880852)

Maybe here, as mentioned in the article?

A study funded by Princeton University, published in the Cognition journal, found that people are better at retaining information written in a less fluent font.

Re:This is... (3, Funny)

goombah99 (560566) | about 4 years ago | (#34879968)

I just use my scratched pair of glasses when I read it. problem solved.

Re:This is... (5, Funny)

blai (1380673) | about 4 years ago | (#34879986)

... and +5 replies are now in Comic Sans.

Wasted Collection (0)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#34880276)

Wasted Collection [fonts101.com] pwns Comic Sans. It's so precious.

Re:This is... (1)

rworne (538610) | about 4 years ago | (#34880926)

And don't forget Caps Lock.

Re:This is... (3, Funny)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | about 4 years ago | (#34880274)

My high-resolution display and crisp, anti-aliased fonts tell me your opinion is irrelevant.

Re:This is... (5, Funny)

Tharsman (1364603) | about 4 years ago | (#34880346)

I would agree, but the crispy font in my higher than HDTV resolution monitor, made the article so easy to read that I dismissed it as unimportant and no longer recall why I started typing this.

Re:This is... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34880558)

How is this modded insightful? I would think on Slashdot of all places people wouldn't just assume research is invalid because the conclusion is counter intuitive. Hell, I'm pretty sure I've heard this before anyway.

Granted, at least from TFA, it doesn't seem like the experiment was done using e-readers, just different fonts, so more study would be worthwhile to ensure they are understanding the mechanism correctly. Not like it would be a hard fix on an e-reader anyway, just change the damn font.

Re:This is... (2, Insightful)

dogmatixpsych (786818) | about 4 years ago | (#34880568)

It's simply based on a level of processing cognitive psychology theory. Things that you have to struggle with a little bit to read or comprehend tend to be more persistent in memory. That's all this research is showing.

Re:This is... (3, Insightful)

daenris (892027) | about 4 years ago | (#34880890)

I've never struggled with reading the font in a typical physical book, so the claim is still a bit ridiculous. I don't think most people are using ereaders to read electronic versions of things that they would previously have read handwritten. They're reading an electronic version of a book that is in a (most likely) similar complexity font to the printed book, so it isn't making it much (if any) easier to read on the ereader.

Re:This is... (1)

Carewolf (581105) | about 4 years ago | (#34880936)

And funny enough the research shows that physical books that are even easier to read tend to be more persistant in memory. Maybe you are confusing the ease of understanding a text with the easy of which to perceive it? As in technical books are remembered more than pixie books? But what on earth does content have to do with presentation?

Re:This is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34881000)

I agree. Words fail me. I can't recall a single time I remembered MORE when I had difficulty reading something due to unclear text. Obviously some self-appointed 'experts' are being paid too much money to come up with 'controversial' (i.e. blatantly untrue) bullshit like this.

Re:This is... (4, Interesting)

ProppaT (557551) | about 4 years ago | (#34881030)

Yeah, this is BS. I remember way more of what I read on my Sony e-reader than I do from books. Probably because I don't have to read into the cracks of books and I can up the font so my eyes don't skip lines. I read so much more than I used to now that I have an e-reader its not funny. It's definitely my best purchase of 2010.

Re:This is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34881094)

Sorry But your Crisp Clear word are not important to me.

Re:This is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34881208)

This is quite possibly one of the stupidest things I have ever read. I'm regretting not reading it on my Kindle, so I could forget it quicker.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.. f-ing hilarious

Re:This is... (1)

insnprsn (1202137) | about 4 years ago | (#34881300)

Hey, they must be on to something, I've done forgotten what it is that article said, guess I didnt absorb enough of it.

E-Readers? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34879778)

What does this have to do with E-readers beside trying to increase article hits? The effect of readability would be just the same for a printed sheet of paper. But I guess that would not be so interesting to read about...

Re:E-Readers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34879806)

It's the same reason why the "editor" puts iPhone, iPad, iPod or some such thing in any article about phones, mp3 players and tablets. Next thing you know, we'll be hearing about every single time Steve Job has a bowel movement.

Re:E-Readers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34880288)

Next thing you know, we'll be hearing about every single time Steve Job has a bowel movement.


Re:E-Readers? (1)

somersault (912633) | about 4 years ago | (#34880538)

Save it for Twitter, Anon

Re:E-Readers? (2)

joebok (457904) | about 4 years ago | (#34880498)

It is definitely about more than just e-readers - at the end:

The scientists wrote that "making material harder to learn can improve long-term learning and retention. More cognitive engagement leads to deeper processing", enabling the reader to recall the information more accurately.

I assume that would apply to an easy to read printed page as well as electronic content. I think it is still relevant to speak to e-readers in particular since they are becoming the pinnacle of reading ease. With an e-reader we can adjust size and font and contrast, sometimes even orientation; allow us to make reading personally easier in a way not possible for print. So if this concept is accurate, we can unknowingly be sub-optimizing our efforts.

Re:E-Readers? (1)

l0g0s (821841) | about 4 years ago | (#34880572)

You must be new here. Linking an article on /. doesn't increase article hits. :-p

Failed to Mention (4, Funny)

tarsi210 (70325) | about 4 years ago | (#34879782)

TFA failed to mention that the bulk of the content found on the e-Readers surveyed was copies of the Twilight series and whatever's on O's list these days.

Somehow, I doubt it's the font that is making everyone stupid...

Re:Failed to Mention (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34880058)

Here's her list. [oprah.com]

Where are the "stupid" books? William Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury? Gabriel Garcia Marquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude? A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens?

Re:Failed to Mention (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34880610)

No graphic novels? Less pictures than the Watchmen. LAME.

Re:Failed to Mention (2)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 4 years ago | (#34880826)

"Stupid" is in the eye of the beholder. Books with high literary value, but limited entertainment value don't normally rate high on my pleasure reading list. Anything Steinbeck ever wrote falls easily beneath this threshold, I might consider terrorism before I read East of Eden again. However my sister might sit around reading One Hundred Years of Solitude and be enthralled, hold debates with people performing intelligent analysis of the characters and speculating about what the author might have been doing. The girl barely made it through algebra and thinks photons are a made up thing for Star Trek, but the depth of study she can perform on some of these books is impressive.

"Stupid" in the sense of "unintelligent" is unfair, but "stupid" in the sense of "a poor relative benefit" probably applies.

Re:Failed to Mention (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34880418)

Those books are about and for young adults. For anyone older than that, they'll seem pretty damn stupid.

That research is obviously done by some eggheads that consider technical manuals as reading. For the rest of us, that like to read books, not manuals, making reading easier, is actually a feature !!!

Re:Failed to Mention (1)

somersault (912633) | about 4 years ago | (#34880790)

Agreed. Finctional entertainment isn't usually about the details, it's about the story and the atmosphere. Any novels that focus too often on long winded descriptions (especially geographical details as in LOTR and Dune.. doubt I'll ever want to finish LOTR, though I might get back to Dune at some point) tend to make me lose interest. IMO a good storyteller is one that keeps the narrative flowing and can paint scenes, characters and moods without needing to fill a whole page. For example plays often hardly have any description of the scenery or characters - it's the dialogue and actions that drive everything.

For those interested after reading that, my favourite author is Pratchett. I think he manages to create fantastic worlds and describe them in just enough detail to have you picture a scene, but without going so far that you fall asleep. His stories and themes are often quite deep, especially in recent years, and his many main characters or groups of characters are very interesting and varied. He mixes Douglas Adams style absurd comedy with philosophy, politics, and insightful social critique. Or something.

Re:Failed to Mention (1)

prettything (965473) | about 4 years ago | (#34880776)

i always remember stuff thats written in comic sans!

Re:Failed to Mention (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34880986)

White Oleander (an Oprah book club selection) was an amazing book. I'm just sayin'.

I can't believe I'm saying this (1)

maroberts (15852) | about 4 years ago | (#34881254)

I understand that Ms Meyer has a B.A in Literature, which should more than qualify her to write. Sci Fi and fantasy authors generally seem to be better qualified to write fiction than their 'normal' compatriots. If you truly want atrocious writing, I recommend James Patterson.

In terms of style I don't think that the Twilight series is that bad, and may even be a cut above many novels in that regard. Stephen Kings opinions notwithstanding, the Twilight series is well written and has atmosphere; it wouldn't hook its audience if it didn't. My main problem with it is that for some reason I got involved in the characterisation in an adverse way, in the sense I was praying that someone would kill the sanctimonious Edward and rip out the the heart of the passive female moose posing as the heroine.

No wonder I keep running out of the good drugs. (1)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | about 4 years ago | (#34879792)

Have these people been dipping into my stash again?

did I miss a major psychological discovery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34879810)

I must have missed the slashdot headline where scientists deciphered how the "subconscious" works.

This is important. (-1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#34879814)

Your brain can tell, because it's hard to read - d00d j00 r kewl w/ m4d sk1llz bt such a newb.

Books? (1)

fizzer82 (1201947) | about 4 years ago | (#34879820)

My reading comprehension score from grade school competency tests disagrees with you Mr. scientists. Though come to think of it, I don't remember what those stories were about. Dear god, I learned nothing in school because books are too easy to read!

Re:Books? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 4 years ago | (#34879952)

Yes, everyone knows how vital reading comprehension test scores are throughout your daily life.

Rebuttal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34879824)

I was gonna post a rebuttal, but my brain was too lazy for me to RTFA.

Books (1)

operagost (62405) | about 4 years ago | (#34879826)

Text books have sharp fonts that are easy to read. No wonder I had trouble remembering stuff in school!

And yet... (3, Interesting)

Desler (1608317) | about 4 years ago | (#34879838)

And yet despite this supposed discovery the person put it out on a webpage which has to be read on a computer screen. I guess he didn't think his discovery was that important since we are all now going to forget it easier? Wouldn't it have been preferable to put scanned images of his handwriting instead?

Re:And yet... (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 4 years ago | (#34879864)

Oh and he even used an easy to read font on his blog. Double fail!

Paper? (5, Insightful)

metrometro (1092237) | about 4 years ago | (#34879846)

Anyone who has ever worked in Information Design can tell you that paper, with it's stunning contrast ratios and 1200 dpi printing is a far more precise medium than screens. WTF?

Paper bends (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#34880322)

Paper bends, which makes the lines of text not straight and the lighting not even.

Re:Paper? (1)

517714 (762276) | about 4 years ago | (#34880700)

I suspect that a large part of the difference is that the search function of the cellulose based information content is so awkward that the user chooses to retain a synaptically based index of the information. With an eBook, the book is presumed to be available in the future and finding information is easy, why remember what you can lookup?

Hipsters... (2)

Caue (909322) | about 4 years ago | (#34879854)

I call bullshit on that research. Maybe the subjects for it were the hipsters that don't really have anything interesting to read but love to sit on the grass in popular parks to show-off their pseudo-intellectuality with an e-reader on their hands.

Re:Hipsters... (2)

Sporkinum (655143) | about 4 years ago | (#34880080)

Hipsters don't use e-readers, they use I-Pads..

Study too small... (5, Interesting)

canowhoopass.com (197454) | about 4 years ago | (#34879862)

The study had 28 participants... and they were asked to remember species of aliens...

While this may be a sign that it's worth looking into the differences a font makes in learning, I'll wait until a bigger study comes out where participants were asked to read a more likely and involved subject matter like the history of the Ottoman Empire.

I have a feeling many participants will be less likely to read past the first chapter if it was written in Comic Sans.

Re:Study too small... (1)

myrdos2 (989497) | about 4 years ago | (#34880766)

If the test showed statistical significance, it won't matter if they increase the sample size, the results will be the same.That's what statistical significance is FOR. Besides, this effect is well known in the field of human memory. The longer your brain focuses on something, the better you'll remember it.

Re:Study too small... (2)

Rhywden (1940872) | about 4 years ago | (#34880988)

Uh, but you need to pass a certain threshold for a statistical significance to become actually meaningful. I mean, using your (unrestrained) logic, one could use a sample size of 3 and convey some meaning from the "statistical significance" when 33% of the sample size behaved differently than the rest of 67%. I mean, they're trying to make a conjecture to the whole population which means that their sample size also has to reflect this selfsame population somehow or become meaningless.
And for your focusing argument, that's not necessarily true for all instances. There are quite a lot of variables which come into play when recalling. For example, there have been studies that reading a text once and then testing several times is better than reading several times and testing once in the long-term. Short-term recall is the other way around, however. (http://memory.psych.purdue.edu/downloads/2006_Roediger_Karpicke_PsychSci.pdf)
Let's not begin to consider stuff like emotional context, motivation and the rest.

Which essentially means that the temporal duration of a learning activity is just one among many variables - and simply repeating something ad nauseam may neither be the best nor the most effective method to learn.

Read better material, don't change font (4, Insightful)

javakah (932230) | about 4 years ago | (#34879870)

There were two main criteria that he used for describing if something is easily forgotten or not: ease of reading visually and complexity of writing.

It seems as if he's advocating making fonts and such harder to read, so that we are more likely to remember what we read, regardless of whether what we are reading is some trashy novel or a manual that we need to know to save lives. This seems wrong. We should be remembering details from what we read based on the quality and importance of the writing, not the font.

Re:Read better material, don't change font (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 4 years ago | (#34879904)

It seems as if he's advocating making fonts and such harder to read, so that we are more likely to remember what we read, regardless of whether what we are reading is some trashy novel or a manual that we need to know to save lives.

And yet he posts it to a blog using an easy to read font. Apparently he didn't want any to be more likely to remember his discovery?

Re:Read better material, don't change font (1)

melikamp (631205) | about 4 years ago | (#34880440)

A life-saving manual should absolutely be easy to read, and also entertaining. The best example can be found in Fallouts 1 & 2, where each life-saving tip is augmented by a drawing to remind you of the consequences of your actions.

Re:Read better material, don't change font (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34880830)

If poor legibility meant higher retention, no one would ever forget anything in my handwriting.

interesting... (1)

ChasmCoder (1818172) | about 4 years ago | (#34879882)

While that is an interesting assertion I personally find that I remember equally well that which I read in tradition books as well as
content delivered via e-Reader or computer.

I don't feel that the medium by which the data is conveyed has any bearing over what ones brain would perceive as important or not.

For me, if it was not at very least an interesting topic to me, I would not be reading it in the first place. So, I enter into the reading
session with a mind set that the information is important or interesting.

That is merely my take on the topic.

Nothing but Speculation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34879890)

I agree with Tool, this is pretty stupid.

Basically, the author points out that a researcher has discovered that, WOAH! when we have a hard time understanding/perceiving words we use more of our brain to help grasp it. He then wildly extrapolates that into the the conclusion that therefore we remember and understand better if we use more of our brain. Uhhh, not necessarily so. There is no data other than the author's own fuzzy recollections. Please ignore this, don't read it. Else, if you do, you will probably see that stupid sticks in your head better than anything you read on a Kindle or in handwriting.

Easier? (2)

ScientiaPotentiaEst (1635927) | about 4 years ago | (#34879932)

Interesting contrast to my experience: I find black ink on paper (using standard TR font) easier to read than the lower contrast text on eReaders and monitors. Flat panel monitors have no detectable flicker like the old CRT monitors (even at high vertical refresh rates with no interleaving) - but their contrast is poorer.

In my case, the "tangible" aspect of turning physical pages seems to make the information stick better. Perhaps that's due to familiarity with the format.

Wrong (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 years ago | (#34879960)

gah, so wrong.

What it points to is that people need to read more challenging works. Something with new words or clever phrases.

Remembering a crappy sentence just because some ink is smudges, or that the font is blurry helps nothing.

On guy extrapolating research he doesn't seem to understand into his person experience means, exactly..nothing.

He likes books, and is just fishing for excuses that justifies his love of books.

Me? I have read a lot of books. I don't love books, I love good stories. The book is nothing, the story is everything.

Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34879998)

When glyphs get too challenging to decipher, my brain just kicks back and says "to hell with it"

not news (1)

someonestolecc (1038714) | about 4 years ago | (#34880008)

"Neuroscience blogger... found he..." "Researchers asked 28 participants..." fail

I call bullsh*t (2)

thefixer(tm) (1906774) | about 4 years ago | (#34880016)

Even if true, I'd bet you a dollar it's learned preference and will be completely different in the coming years. I'd wager that the preference has to do with how we're taught the 'weight' of the printed word either in libraries from when we were children, or contextual learning, like ignoring the fine print in a drug ad. I'd also bet that a similar study would show that we forget things read in magazines more quickly than things read in books. And I bet we remember hardcover books more than softcover, etc.

In other words, the people studied put digital readers in a mental category of 'novelty item' today, and their brain de-prioritizes what they are reading accordingly.

They need a better study.

FOX News? (1)

jornak (1377831) | about 4 years ago | (#34880032)

This sounds more like a story from there and less like a scientific research study. Even then, I can remember reading certain Slashdot stories from 3 years ago more than I can remember the plot outline of the Wheel of Time, which I started reading 2 years ago.

Re:FOX News? (1)

nomadic (141991) | about 4 years ago | (#34880136)

Even then, I can remember reading certain Slashdot stories from 3 years ago more than I can remember the plot outline of the Wheel of Time, which I started reading 2 years ago.

I remember the Wheel of Time plotline, but that's only because I remember the Dune plotline and they're pretty much the same.

Ads by Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34880048)

Does anyone else have a Kindle 3G + WiFi add on the right-hand side of this article? It almost seems as if they had an article about cigarettes causing cancer, Google would have a Marlboro ad there, too.

Not gonna trick me this time. (1)

sirrunsalot (1575073) | about 4 years ago | (#34880076)

This is exactly why I've blocked telegraph.co.uk. Our #1 source for vague (but relevant) hypotheses hyped up and presented as facts.

Sure... (1)

YesDinosaursDidExist (1268920) | about 4 years ago | (#34880124)

...so do you remember the CAPTCHA phrase from those tickets you bought last week? I didn't think so...

Re:Sure... (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 4 years ago | (#34880938)

Actually "Refried Strüdel". But I think this may be the exception...

Lifehacker has more detailed info about it (1)

foksoft (848194) | about 4 years ago | (#34880154)

As a coincidence I just read post on lifehacker on same topic. It contains more insight into problem. They say that different parts of brain are involved when reading harder to read text and thus resulting in better understanding or remembering of written. http://lifehacker.com/5733692/harder-to-read-fonts-may-improve-learning [lifehacker.com]

Science running out of ideas... (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | about 4 years ago | (#34880156)

... on ways to tell us to go outside more. When did science stop doing cool stuff like shooting rockets in space or write words with atoms and start sounding like my mom?

Re:Science running out of ideas... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 years ago | (#34880672)

SO you based your statement that science is 'running out of ideas' on an article from a blog? one that doesn't even seem to understand the study he is talking about?

The real question is "When are you going to stop and think?"

Good science is being done every day all around the world. I was reading an article on how they can now determine the hair color from genetic material any where from 60% to 90% certainty depending on the color. If memory serves 90% for red heads, 60% for blondes.
That's great science. Did you read about the super computer that played jeopardy? more good science.

Re:Science running out of ideas... (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | about 4 years ago | (#34880746)

The real question is "When are you going to stop and think?"

I'll take "People who take jokes at face value" for 100, Alex.

Empirical data says otherwise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34880184)

At University there were a couple of proffesors who wrote horrible mangled garbage, and I learned nothing on those subjects until I decided to sneak into a different class with different teachers for those subjects.
Also, I'm pretty sure my miopy did not do me any favors when looking at the chalkboard.

Which e-Reader Comany... (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 4 years ago | (#34880186)

sponsored this research? I'd like to avoid them in the future.

Microsoft to the rescue! (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 4 years ago | (#34880248)

No pain, no gain? No problem, just use MS Comic Sans on it and the text will burn in your forehead for weeks.

Wrong Direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34880254)

We have trained our brains to be lazy and remember little of what we read on computer screens because there is little worth remembering being displayed on computer screens.

Comic Sans (1)

AjaxIII (1237230) | about 4 years ago | (#34880306)

So using a not very rigorous study comparing Arial font vs Comic Sans and Bodoni fonts you can of course infer e-ink screens make you forget more. Of course you have to use the proper framing of statements to avoid being called on it. In fact Comic Sans triggers that one area of the brain that makes you remember things more, experts say. Some believe, that if you alternated using Comic Sans and Bodoni fonts your retention of all materials read could be massively higher than those read using less "Brain friendly" fonts such as Times New Roman, and Arial.

So there's two key problems with these devices. (1)

seebs (15766) | about 4 years ago | (#34880364)

1. The text is much harder to read than regular ink on paper.
2. The text is much easier to read than regular ink on paper.

I'm glad the commentators of the world have been able to identify these two problems.

That said, yes, it's been observed in the past that harder to read text can produce stronger memories, but this is not necessarily a good tradeoff, depending on what you're reading and why.

Re:So there's two key problems with these devices. (2)

maroberts (15852) | about 4 years ago | (#34881280)

I find it hard to read or even remember what I read on a Kindle type display, because the black on greyish contrast is offputting. I find myself distracted by the display and not focusing on the text.

New at 11 (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | about 4 years ago | (#34880414)

Next on news: memory bits are too easy on computer's CPUs.

Finally vindicated! (2)

noidentity (188756) | about 4 years ago | (#34880436)

All those years they made fun of me for running 2560x1600 on my 19" CRT, saying I was going to ruin my eyes because it was so hard to read. At least I remember everything I read over the years.

Use cut-up letters from magazines (4, Funny)

DBCubix (1027232) | about 4 years ago | (#34880466)

and people won't forget your message

I have RTFA (1)

Torodung (31985) | about 4 years ago | (#34880524)

I have RTFA, but I've already forgotten it.

QED. ;^P

Even if the fonts are an issue, there's a fix (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 4 years ago | (#34880548)

We already digitally add graininess, snow, and other effects to video images when we want them to look like older methods of video capture. If this is an actual problem (which I find doubtful), then within a few years you'll likely see companies adding mechanisms to introduce imperfections into the fonts of their e-reading devices. Either that, or they'll all just use Comic Sans, since there are few fonts that are more painful to read in today's marketplace.

Study (1)

Zalbik (308903) | about 4 years ago | (#34880566)

Here's the actual study [princeton.edu] which describes this phenomenon.

I'm now switching my browser defaults to Arial so I can forget everything I read on Slashdot faster.

Why E-readers? (1)

Hodapp (1175021) | about 4 years ago | (#34880578)

Assuming for the moment that they've found a real connection...

Why does this article single out E-readers? Doesn't everything there apply just the same to LCDs, CRTs, printed material, and anything else that is capable of rendering those same easily-read fonts?

Re:Why E-readers? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 years ago | (#34880612)

Because he loves books. And people who love books hate E-Reader. people who love stories, OTOH, enjoy e-readers

It's a biased nothing article, probably submitted by a book lover.

Re:Why E-readers? (0)

dissy (172727) | about 4 years ago | (#34880886)

It's a biased nothing article, probably submitted by a book lover.

Which is pretty ironic, since he also argued that real books that use paper are even Worse than ebooks and computer monitors, since by the same reasoning paper is even easier on the eyes than e-readers, have the same fonts, and are even higher resolution.

Lazy kids today and your easy-to-read books! (1)

Captain Spam (66120) | about 4 years ago | (#34880720)

New research suggests that the clear screens and easily read fonts of e-readers makes your brain "lazy."

Given that introduction, TFA is made of epic fail if it lacks the following two elements:

  • Use of any phrase similar to "Researchers went on to state that, when they were the age which most E-Reader users are now, they had much more difficult paper from which to read, which, they claim, kept their minds sharp as a tack, unlike what they describe as 'you whippersnappers' get babied with these days."
  • A conclusion that involves the strong implication that the reader should get off the researchers' lawns.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34880736)

So e-Ink is better than paper? Wohooo!

Doctor's prescriptions? (1)

KnightBlade (1074408) | about 4 years ago | (#34880762)

Yes, because we all remember our Doctor's prescriptions in almost illegible handwriting, don't we?

It's so much harder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34880796)

E-Readers are too easy ... I think we should all just wait for the movie ;-)

ears? (1)

bugi (8479) | about 4 years ago | (#34880840)

Cover your eyes the better to see with.

Cover your ears the better to hear with.

Cover your mouth the better to speak with.

Wait.. (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | about 4 years ago | (#34880856)

Stupid people conducting "research" produces stupid results? Hmmm.

22 October 2010 BBC News (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34880920)

Then my handwriting is really important (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34881040)

Well if hard to read tell the brain that something is important then my handwritten notes are the most important stuff you have never read!

This message is very important (2)

stumblingblock (409645) | about 4 years ago | (#34881292)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?